PHOOL SINGH Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION & TWO
LAWS(UTN)-2013-1-49
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on January 16,2013

PHOOL SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
Joint Director Consolidation And Two Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.S.VERMA, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 20.4.1993 passed by respondent no.1/Joint Director of Consolidation, whereby the respondent no.1 has set aside the judgment and order of Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, Haridwar dated 29.1.1993.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, facts of the case, giving rise to this writ petition are, that during the consolidation operation in village Panhowali Pargana Jwalapur, Tehsil Laksar,the petitioner was allotted chak no.147 and respondent no.2 Smt. Raj Bala was allotted chak no.256. The original holding of the petitioner was plot no.363/5, 363/6, 365/8, 372, 50/1, 50/2, 51/1, 51/2, 282/3, 284/5 situated at Village Panchowali and original holding of respondent no.2 was plot no.363 and plot nos.71, 72, 87, 88, 89/3 and 89/4 and she was allotted chak no.256. At the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer, two chaks were proposed to respondent no.2, one at plot no.24 1, 245, 246, 252, 253 and another at plot no.363/4, 362/2 and 362/1 whereas the petitioner was allotted proposed chaks at plot no.365/8 and another at plot no.363/4, 363/6. According to the petitioner, the land allotted to the respondent no.2 is not her original holding and wholly uran chak has been given to her/respondent no.2. Original holding of respondent no.2 being plot no.171 is marked as bachat land. The petitioner filed objections against the chak proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer u/s 20 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, wherein it was prayed that he may be given chak at his original holding at plot no.363/6 instead at plot no.365/8. Objections were allowed by the Consolidation Officer and the petitioner was given chak at plot no.363/6. Aggrieved by the order of Consolidation Officer, the respondent no.2 filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. By an order dated 21.1.1992, appeal was dismissed. Further aggrieved, the respondent no.2 preferred revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation, who set aside the order of S.O.C. and remanded the case to the S.O.C. to decide the same afresh after taking into consideration the compromise arrived at between the respondent no.2 Smt. Raj Bala and respondent no.3 Ved Pal. Thereafter, the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, after hearing the parties and taking into consideration the said compromise, vide judgment and order dated 29.1.1993, decided the appeal and affirmed its earlier judgment and order dated 21.1.1992. Further aggrieved, respondent no.2 filed another revision, which was allowed by respondent no.1/Joint Director Consolidation, vide judgment and order dated 20.4.1993. Vide order dated 20.4.1993, respondent no.1 has held that the learned S.O.C. has committed manifest error of law by not considering the compromise which was made between respondent no.2 and
(3.) 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders of the courts below. Learned Deputy Director of Consolidation, vide his earlier order, whereby the case was remanded back to the S.O.C., had directed to consider the compromise which was made between respondent no.2 and 3. In this regard, learned S.O.C., in its order dated 29.1.1993, had given a categorical finding on the issue that the compromise is not a valid one.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.